Tennis sumo

[aderechelsea]

Surfaces shouldn't matter as much, especially with (IIRC) the US Open and the Australian Open having similar surfaces.

similar but quite different in the same time.

The Australian Open one is not as fast and has bigger bounce. It used to get a bit sticky too in the past due to extreme heat in Australia. A good clay court player can advance in the Australian Open up to the last stages once in a while.

On the other hand the US Open courts are harder and faster. They provide a big advantage for "serve & volley" players.

not that it matters much to the subject you are talking about but ....

[HenryK]

You have a point there, but at the same time I was looking because you put so much emphasis on how much "harder" it is to win consecutive Slam events compared to basho simply because there are less of them. Surfaces shouldn't matter as much, especially with (IIRC) the US Open and the Australian Open having similar surfaces. Having Miami start in 1985 could be akin to the "modern 6-basho era" that sumo has, just much later. Another tournament could also be used before 1985 to compensate.

Ok. My "modern era" starts with the open era in 1969, although you could extend the list backwards.

Here's an idea though, what if the players had to be seeded for the tournament for their results to count? It would be akin to getting into the joi-jin and having a chance of getting into sanyaku with a good record at the next basho.

Why not, if you think the implications are acceptable -- Boris Becker winning Wimbledon in 1985 for example wouldn't get a Sanyaku ranking (he went as Sekiwake into the US Open with my system).

I might just have a go at this myself. Might be a stupid question though, how do you fall from sanyaku spots in this system?

By missing quarterfinals (my equivalent for MK)

EDIT: Another question, how come Guillermo Vilas isn't listed as a Yokozuna when he won 2 consecutive Slams (US Open 77 and Australian Open Dec 77)?

Seems he didn't win the Australian Open in Dec. 1977 but in Dec. 1978, and there is a wrong entry in the Vilas article at Wikipedia. Instead Gerulaitis won in Dec. 1977. You're right, back-to-back wins would have given Vilas a Yokozuna promotion. In fact in my list he's by far the best "Ozeki" who never made it to "Yokozuna".

Australian Open December 1977

[Zeokage]

That makes sense, were there 3 Australian Opens in 2 years... Jan 77, Dec 77, and Jan 78? Someone should edit the order of the 77 Opens, it's pretty confusing reading in that area on this page.

Here's an idea though, what if the players had to be seeded for the tournament for their results to count? It would be akin to getting into the joi-jin and having a chance of getting into sanyaku with a good record at the next basho.

Why not, if you think the implications are acceptable -- Boris Becker winning Wimbledon in 1985 for example wouldn't get a Sanyaku ranking (he went as Sekiwake into the US Open with my system).

It was a reflex suggestion, but now you've said that, I did a mini-equivalence check and it seems that if someone wins a yusho from the "unseeded" area, it's fair to put them at komusubi.

As for doing what Tsonga did and get to the final, I did a related check the only one who went to sekiwake from below M10 did it with a 14-1, which is pretty much going through a tournament and only losing 1 set. The other thing about that basho is that 20 out of the 30 rikishi between sekiwake and M13 went MK, so it was an anomaly of sorts.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Zeokage

[HenryK]

That makes sense, were there 3 Australian Opens in 2 years... Jan 77, Dec 77, and Jan 78? Someone should edit the order of the 77 Opens, it's pretty confusing reading in that area on this page.

Here's an idea though, what if the players had to be seeded for the tournament for their results to count? It would be akin to getting into the joi-jin and having a chance of getting into sanyaku with a good record at the next basho.

Why not, if you think the implications are acceptable -- Boris Becker winning Wimbledon in 1985 for example wouldn't get a Sanyaku ranking (he went as Sekiwake into the US Open with my system).

It was a reflex suggestion, but now you've said that, I did a mini-equivalence check and it seems that if someone wins a yusho from the "unseeded" area, it's fair to put them at komusubi.

As for doing what Tsonga did and get to the final, I did a related check the only one who went to sekiwake from below M10 did it with a 14-1, which is pretty much going through a tournament and only losing 1 set. The other thing about that basho is that 20 out of the 30 rikishi between sekiwake and M13 went MK, so it was an anomaly of sorts.

Thanks. Good stuff.

[Jejima]

Seems you misunderstood the rating system. Tsonga would have had to win the Australian and the French Open to become Yokozuna. Since he failed with the first part, this prospect if off anyway. The only players who have a chance to make it to Yokozuna in Paris are Sharapova and Djokovic.

Now if you look at the list of players who would have made it to Yokozuna since the beginning of the open era (see above) you'll find not a single odd case for the past 40 years. Quite by contrast, the system seems to be rather good at picking the great players and distinguishing them from the merely very good (Ozeki and below).

But in ozumo becoming yokozuna is not purely based on winning two consecutive tournaments. Very simply, and leaving the question character (hinkaku) aside, you must first be Ozeki and then win the two consecutive tournaments to become yokozuna. Tsonga, even if he had won the Australian and French would not be yokozuna. He would have to gain Ozeki ranking in your tennis banzuke and then win back to back Opens.

This is correct. However, at the same time one has to take into account that there are only 4 Grand Slam tournaments per year, while there are 6 bahos. Thus there are simply far fewer chances to cobble a "run" together in "tennis sumo" than in ozumo. This ought to lead to a relaxation of the criteria somewhere. I personally would find it odd not to consider a player who wins the French and Wimbledon -- or Wimbledon and the US Open -- back-to-back a "great". Somehow this is more than two subsequent bashos.

Now I am not at all saying that my "tennis sumo" criteria are the only sensible ones -- surely many other at least as sensible criteria could be thought up -- but the fact that outcome and intuition are closely matched suggests to me that they ain't that bad.

Cheers,

HK

Six basho a year in sumo is only about 50 years old. Go back 100 years and there were only 2 bashos a year, yet the sumo system of promotion and demotion still worked.

I think you have to mirror sumo rankings rules as closely as possible, or you have some thing subjective. If you do mirror sumo 100%, then we can all agree on the rank comparisons (I think).

Alternatively if you make as many adjustments to how it works in sumo to make the tennis comparison as to what you think is 'better', we will end up with the result that tennis player XXX is to be considered a Yokozuna because HenryK deems it so, due to his additional criteria (which has no basis in Ozumo).

But someone might disagree with your criteria, and create their own (albeit also with reasonable arguments supporting their case.), and you end up with two conflicting banzukes.

So I would suggest that you 100% mirror Ozumo, with no exceptions.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Jejima

[Zeokage]

I'd have to agree with that sentiment. The number of times you've already said "But so-and-so would only be this rank" already makes it look like you've added some bias to this. Hence me trying to figure out whether I should make an attempt at this myself...

I guess the way to mirror the sumo banzuke's sanyaku completely would be to just take those seeds who make the quarter finals (unless an unseeded player wins it all) and assume everyone else got an MK (maybe except a sekiwake going out in 5 sets in the last 16?) and rank them all. There should only be at most 16 players on there at any one time that way.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Zeokage

[HenryK]

A few remarks:

1) C/o ranking criteria in pre-modern ozumo: this were totally different from today. Often a single jun-yusho was sufficient for Yokozuna promotion, if the rikishi had been Ozeki for a while and the sumo association thought it was time to fill up the Yokozuna ranks. And even in the modern era, promotion criteria for Ozeki and Yokozuna have changed several times. Futahaguro would never made it to Yokozuna if he fought today, and the criteria for Ozeki are still in flux--see Miyabiyama. And of course there aren't any clear promotion criteria for the lower Sanyaku ranks, much there depends on "banzuke luck".

Thus if you say I should strictly apply the equivalents of ozumo criteria to tennis, you presumably mean the criteria valid in 2008 for Yokozuna and to some degree Ozeki. As written before, I believe these are simply too strict, with only four tennis grand slams per year that are played on different surfaces. Winning the French and Wimbledon back-to-back is a near-impossible feat, for example, that noone has managed since Bjorn Borg. Not Federer, not Sampras, not Agassi. I can try to see what happens though if I impose this, and I may once I find a little time, but for sure a tennis player who is "same" quality in a relative terms as a rikishi is likely to end up with a lower rank.

This said, requesting that a Yokozuna is Ozeki before he starts his run, and an Ozeki Sanyaku -- as some have suggested -- is a perfectly sensible suggestion. I just believe you need to relax the criteria somewhere else then. Say, a win and a final is enough for a Yokozuna promotion; and two semi-finals suffice to get to Ozeki.

2) C/o the ranking criteria are such that HenryK likes the outcome. Of course this plays a part. The rankings that come out in the end need to make sense and be reasonably in line with intuition.

Still, I far from like everything about my rankings -- Guillermo Vilas' career stats, for example, are much more in line with those of a Yokozuna than with the Ozekis, and yet he comes out as Ozeki -- because he never put the needed series together (partly because he didn't participate in the Aussie Open in some years). Or: Magnus Larsson is Ozeki, while Goran Ivanisevic is only Sekiwake. Larsson had a short, moderately succesful period around 2000, while Goran was for many years an erratic but highly dangerous presence on court, who could beat any player any time on any surface. But then, this is simply what comes out. Btw, I developed strict criteria for promotion to "Sekiwake" and "Komosubi" precisely to minimize the amount of personal judgement involved. The downside is that there are sometimes 3 or 4 Sekiwake and sometimes none.

3) Maegeshira ranks. I agree it would be nice to add them. The obvious thing would be to take the ATP/WTA rankings and fill up. And, yes, one could and probably should refine the promotion criteria to the lower Sanyaku ranks on that basis. Probably Tsonga shouldn't be Sanyaku at this stage, because he was barely top 40 before the Aussie open -- equivalent to about M14. A M14 with jun-yusho (say, 12-3) would arguably end up M1-M3. By contrast, Boris Becker was about #20 pre-Wimbledon 1985, hence roughly M5, and M5 plus a yusho could get you to Sekiwake also in ozumo. Yep, taking this into account would be much better. The main downside though is that this would be much more work.

Cheers,

Henry

Edited February 3, 2008 by HenryK

[Sasanishiki]

Winning the French and Wimbledon back-to-back is a near-impossible feat, for example, that noone has managed since Bjorn Borg. Not Federer, not Sampras, not Agassi.

That no man has managed since Bjorn Borg.

Martina Navratilova 1982, 1984

Steffi Graf 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996

Serena Williams 2002

[HenryK]

Winning the French and Wimbledon back-to-back is a near-impossible feat, for example, that noone has managed since Bjorn Borg. Not Federer, not Sampras, not Agassi.

That no man has managed since Bjorn Borg.

Martina Navratilova 1982, 1984

Steffi Graf 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996

Serena Williams 2002

Quite right. Also Chris Evert, Margaret Court, Billie Jean King and Evonne Goolagong won Wimbledon and the US Open back-to-back, while among the men only Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg managed that. 2 players in 40 years.

This points to a more general characteristic of the womens' vs. the mens' game: quality in the female game is more concentrated. The top five ladies of the open era -- Graf, Court, Navratilova, Evert, King -- won more than half of the GS titles, 81 out of 160. The top five men --Sampras, Federer, Borg, and two of Connors/Lendl/Agassi -- won 53. One consequence for the ozumo-type rating is that there are fewer female Sekiwake and Komosubi. The Yokozuna and Ozeki ladies grab all the titles/finals/semis.

Edited February 3, 2008 by HenryK

[Doitsuyama]

A M14 winning a yusho would arguably end up M1-M3.

How this? It's pretty much (just short of) a rule that a yusho gets you into sanyaku, even from lowest maegashira. The four yusho winners from double digit maegashira ranks in the last 40 years all got to sanyaku, most prominently (and most recently) Takatoriki. The last exception from this is Sadanoyama in 1961, but back then promotion and demotion steps were much lower.

[HenryK]

A M14 winning a yusho would arguably end up M1-M3.

How this? It's pretty much (just short of) a rule that a yusho gets you into sanyaku, even from lowest maegashira. The four yusho winners from double digit maegashira ranks in the last 40 years all got to sanyaku, most prominently (and most recently) Takatoriki. The last exception from this is Sadanoyama in 1961, but back then promotion and demotion steps were much lower.

Sorry I misspoke. I meant a M14 winning a jun-yusho would arguably end up in the meat grinder but not the sanyaku ranks (Tsonga didn't win, he just reached the final).

Edited February 3, 2008 by HenryK

[Zeokage]

1) Thus if you say I should strictly apply the equivalents of ozumo criteria to tennis, you presumably mean the criteria valid in 2008 for Yokozuna and to some degree Ozeki. As written before, I believe these are simply too strict, with only four tennis grand slams per year that are played on different surfaces. Winning the French and Wimbledon back-to-back is a near-impossible feat, for example, that noone has managed since Bjorn Borg. Not Federer, not Sampras, not Agassi. I can try to see what happens though if I impose this, and I may once I find a little time, but for sure a tennis player who is "same" quality in a relative terms as a rikishi is likely to end up with a lower rank.

This said, requesting that a Yokozuna is Ozeki before he starts his run, and an Ozeki Sanyaku -- as some have suggested -- is a perfectly sensible suggestion. I just believe you need to relax the criteria somewhere else then. Say, a win and a final is enough for a Yokozuna promotion; and two semi-finals suffice to get to Ozeki.

As far as my searching goes, no-one's taken advantage of this, but haven't some stipulations said that a Yusho/Jun-Yusho/Yusho run could also mean becoming a Yokozuna should the times need one? Winning the Aussie and Wimbledon with a final in the French must have been done by more than just Federer. You're also forgetting the frequency the other consecutive victories (the ones not including the French Open) occur. It seems that the clay court is the "bogey court" for even the best Tennis Yokozuna.

Or: Magnus Larsson is Ozeki, while Goran Ivanisevic is only Sekiwake. Larsson had a short, moderately succesful period around 2000, while Goran was for many years an erratic but highly dangerous presence on court, who could beat any player any time on any surface. But then, this is simply what comes out. Btw, I developed strict criteria for promotion to "Sekiwake" and "Komosubi" precisely to minimize the amount of personal judgement involved. The downside is that there are sometimes 3 or 4 Sekiwake and sometimes none.

Out of curiosity, as I can't find it that quickly, what was Larsson's Ozeki run? If a sumo Ozeki run is 33(?) wins at sanyaku (and assuming a base win count of 8/9 for QF, 10/11 for SF, 12/13 for the final with 14/15 for the win), Larsson's run would have to be 3 tight quarter finals in a row to be considered, and that would be pushing it.

3) Maegeshira ranks. I agree it would be nice to add them. The obvious thing would be to take the ATP/WTA rankings and fill up. And, yes, one could and probably should refine the promotion criteria to the lower Sanyaku ranks on that basis. Probably Tsonga shouldn't be Sanyaku at this stage, because he was barely top 40 before the Aussie open -- equivalent to about M14. A M14 with jun-yusho (say, 12-3) would arguably end up M1-M3. By contrast, Boris Becker was about #20 pre-Wimbledon 1985, hence roughly M5, and M5 plus a yusho could get you to Sekiwake also in ozumo. Yep, taking this into account would be much better. The main downside though is that this would be much more work.

Another way to figure in Sekiwake and Komusubi ranks could be to look at their performance over the last 4 tournaments (especially with Sekiwake). It would seem that without banzuke luck, it's the consistency rather than the one good basho that gets you up there.

"Komusubi runs" for the past 5 years...

"Sekiwake runs" for the past 5 years...

I tried to make my own criteria, and thought about what could be expected of a tennis sanyaku:

Yokozuna: Win the title

Ozeki: Reach the semis but with some finals and the odd title in there

Sekiwake: Quarters with a healthy dollop of semis

Komusubi: Constant quarter-finals

The only people they should lose to are those above them in the rankings, so with 2 people at each rank as a base point, you would expect the quarter finals to be just those sanyaku players. Any other seeds that make it should be taking their place.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Zeokage

[HenryK]

As far as my searching goes, no-one's taken advantage of this, but haven't some stipulations said that a Yusho/Jun-Yusho/Yusho run could also mean becoming a Yokozuna should the times need one? Winning the Aussie and Wimbledon with a final in the French must have been done by more than just Federer. You're also forgetting the frequency the other consecutive victories (the ones not including the French Open) occur. It seems that the clay court is the "bogey court" for even the best Tennis Yokozuna.

All of my "Yokozunas" except Newcombe, Lendl (!), Edberg, Davenport and Sanchez-Vicario had back-to-back GS wins at some point of their careers -- after all this is the key promotion criterion. The problem, if you wish, is that many of them were not "Ozekis" when they started this "run". With only 4 instead of 6 competitions per calendar year, cobbling subsequent Sanyaku, Ozeki and Yokozuna runs together IS much more difficult. It requires a degree of consistency over a long time period and across surfaces that simply is very rare in tennis, at least the men's game.

And, yes I have an equivalent to Yusho--Jun-Yusho--Yusho for Yokozuna promotion. This is why Lendl, Davenport and Sanchez-Vicatio also are Yokozunas. See the opening post.

Out of curiosity, as I can't find it that quickly, what was Larsson's Ozeki run? If a sumo Ozeki run is 33(?) wins at sanyaku (and assuming a base win count of 8/9 for QF, 10/11 for SF, 12/13 for the final with 14/15 for the win), Larsson's run would have to be 3 tight quarter finals in a row to be considered, and that would be pushing it.

Sorry I meant Magnus Norman, not Magnus Larsson (Larsson didn't get higher than komusubi). Norman reached the semis at the Aussie Open in 2000 and the final at the subsequent French Open (losing to Kuerten). This grants him an Ozeki promotion according to my criteria. Btw, he was ranked #1 at the time, but could never repeat these performances.

Another way to figure in Sekiwake and Komusubi ranks could be to look at their performance over the last 4 tournaments (especially with Sekiwake). It would seem that without banzuke luck, it's the consistency rather than the one good basho that gets you up there.

Well I look at performance over the past 3 tournaments.

I tried to make my own criteria, and thought about what could be expected of a tennis sanyaku:

Yokozuna: Win the title

Ozeki: Reach the semis but with some finals and the odd title in there

Sekiwake: Quarters with a healthy dollop of semis

Komusubi: Constant quarter-finals

Actually these are pretty much my criteria. See the opening post.

Cheers,

H

Edited February 5, 2008 by HenryK

[Zeokage]

As far as my searching goes, no-one's taken advantage of this, but haven't some stipulations said that a Yusho/Jun-Yusho/Yusho run could also mean becoming a Yokozuna should the times need one? Winning the Aussie and Wimbledon with a final in the French must have been done by more than just Federer. You're also forgetting the frequency the other consecutive victories (the ones not including the French Open) occur. It seems that the clay court is the "bogey court" for even the best Tennis Yokozuna.

All of my "Yokozunas" except Newcombe, Lendl (!), Edberg, Davenport and Sanchez-Vicario had back-to-back GS wins at some point of their careers -- after all this is the key promotion criterion. The problem, if you wish, is that many of them were not "Ozekis" when they started this "run". With only 4 instead of 6 competitions per calendar year, cobbling subsequent Sanyaku, Ozeki and Yokozuna runs together IS much more difficult. It requires a degree of consistency over a long time period and across surfaces that simply is very rare in tennis, at least the men's game.

And, yes I have an equivalent to Yusho--Jun-Yusho--Yusho for Yokozuna promotion. This is why Lendl, Davenport and Sanchez-Vicatio also are Yokozunas. See the opening post.

By the search, I meant that while it's happened in Tennis, the door has been open for it to happen in Sumo, but it has yet to happen.

So the French Open being an example for making things "easier" doesn't quite hold as the greats still manage to make the final there don't they? And in the end, isn't that consistency, being able to get to finals even though it's not their best surface a defnintion of a great player? I would assume Hakuho or Asashoryu might be among the quickest from sanyaku debut to Yokozuna, but who was the quickest to get there in your tennis banzuke?

Out of curiosity, as I can't find it that quickly, what was Larsson's Ozeki run? If a sumo Ozeki run is 33(?) wins at sanyaku (and assuming a base win count of 8/9 for QF, 10/11 for SF, 12/13 for the final with 14/15 for the win), Larsson's run would have to be 3 tight quarter finals in a row to be considered, and that would be pushing it.

Sorry I meant Magnus Norman, not Magnus Larsson (Larsson didn't get higher than komusubi). Norman reached the semis at the Aussie Open in 2000 and the final at the subsequent French Open (losing to Kuerten). This grants him an Ozeki promotion according to my criteria. Btw, he was ranked #1 at the time, but could never repeat these performances.

Using those base numbers over 3 tournaments, Norman wouldn't have made it to Ozeki as he had an MK at Wimbledon in 1999 and 2000 (I'm classing the 1999 US Open as a "kosho" as he retired hurt in the 4th round).

Another way to figure in Sekiwake and Komusubi ranks could be to look at their performance over the last 4 tournaments (especially with Sekiwake). It would seem that without banzuke luck, it's the consistency rather than the one good basho that gets you up there.

Well I look at performance over the past 3 tournaments.

I tried to make my own criteria, and thought about what could be expected of a tennis sanyaku:

Yokozuna: Win the title

Ozeki: Reach the semis but with some finals and the odd title in there

Sekiwake: Quarters with a healthy dollop of semis

Komusubi: Constant quarter-finals

Actually these are pretty much my criteria. See the opening post.

I guess the only thing I can really point out is the rise of an unseeded player to sanyaku when they didn't win the tournament, so if any other changes could be made it would be to take out the "he or she reaches a seminfinal/final" criteria (especially if you intend to look at performance over 3 tournaments) but acually winning the tournament is, as we have seen, is a reasonable exception for getting to Komusubi. I had things like "average a 4th round appearance over 4 grand slams" for Komusubi and the same with a quarter final average for a sekiwake, but that's over a whole year's tennis and I know the first thing that could be a negative is that the rise to the top could be even slower. Also, I don't know how often a seed retires hurt, but maybe a kosho status could be implemented as well? Edited February 5, 2008 by Zeokage

[Doitsuyama]

Also, I don't know how often a seed retires hurt, but maybe a kosho status could be implemented as well?

You must be kinda new (= after 2004) as those who weren't following sumo before 2004 quite often have a very weird understanding how kosho worked (something along the line "retring hurt with kosho doesn't affect the banzuke rank"). "Kosho" does nothing to help the ranking in the basho where a rikishi was retiring with injury. For example a 7-1-8 still is a big fat make-koshi even with kosho and a kadoban ozeki would be sekiwake next basho. Kosho is only affecting the next basho and only in case of a non-appearance as this isn't treated as 0 wins but as keeping the rank. In our example the former ozeki could sit out the next basho, score a 10-5 in the second basho after and return to ozeki.

[Zeokage]

Oh, I know that they would have to have missed the entire basho with a recognised injury for kosho status in sumo (that IS correct, isn't it?) but to cover the whole "there are only 4 slams compared to 6 basho" thing I expanded it a bit for the tennis ranking.

[Afrozuna]

Hi Henry

Just out of interest

1. Which of your Yokozunas do you think would have been asked to hand in their resignation papers by now. I was thinking Venus and Serena between 2004-2005 would have had to seat a few bashos out due to injury and would not have maintained levels required from Yokozunas especially Venus first round exit at Grand Slam would be like 2-13 for a "healthy" Yokozuna. Post 2000 Hingis would definately have been asked to hand in the resignation papers.

2. Which of the Yokozunas would actually be dai-yokozunas. Since 10 is seen as the magic number in sumo. Wouldn't it have to be a bit lower in tennis since there are only 4 Slams a year. Would Serena(8), Juju(7), Vee(6) make the cut off point?

[HenryK]

Hi Henry

Just out of interest

1. Which of your Yokozunas do you think would have been asked to hand in their resignation papers by now. I was thinking Venus and Serena between 2004-2005 would have had to seat a few bashos out due to injury and would not have maintained levels required from Yokozunas especially Venus first round exit at Grand Slam would be like 2-13 for a "healthy" Yokozuna. Post 2000 Hingis would definately have been asked to hand in the resignation papers.

2. Which of the Yokozunas would actually be dai-yokozunas. Since 10 is seen as the magic number in sumo. Wouldn't it have to be a bit lower in tennis since there are only 4 Slams a year. Would Serena(8), Juju(7), Vee(6) make the cut off point?

Hmmmm..... I haven't thought much about either, to be honest. Agassi, Becker, the Williams sisters, Davenport, Hingis might all have seen the careers cut short, I suppose.

On the second point, below are the record GS title winners in the open era. Upon reflection, my personal choice for Dai-Yokozuna would be the players in bold :

MEN

Sampras 14 GRAND MASTER

Federer 12 GRAND MASTER

Borg 11 GRAND MASTER

Connors 8 GRAND MASTER

Agassi 8 GRAND MASTER

Lendl 8 GRAND MASTER

McEnroe 7 GRAND MASTER

Wilander 7 GRAND MASTER

Becker 6 GRAND MASTER

Edberg 6 GRAND MASTER

Newcombe 5 GRAND MASTER

Laver 5 GRAND MASTER

Vilas 4 MASTER

Rosewall 4 GRAND MASTER

Courier 4 GRAND MASTER

Kodes 3 MASTER

Kuerten 3 MASTER

Ashe 3 MASTER

Nadal 3 MASTER

WOMEN

Graf 22 GRAND MASTER

Evert 18 GRAND MASTER

Navratilova 18 GRAND MASTER

Court 11 GRAND MASTER

Seles 9 GRAND MASTER

King 8 GRAND MASTER

S. Williams 8 GRAND MASTER

Henin 7 GRAND MASTER

Goolagong 7 GRAND MASTER

V. Williams 6 GRAND MASTER

Hingis 5 GRAND MASTER

Sanchez-Vicario 4 GRAND MASTER

Mandlikova 4 GRAND MASTER

Davenport 3 GRAND MASTER

Wade 3 MASTER

Capriati 3 GRAND MASTER

The players with 10 slams or more -- Sampras, Federer, Borg, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Court -- are undoubtedly the cream of open era tennis. I would add in Monica Seles, who was super-dominant before she got stabbed and would surely have won more titles otherwise. Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall and Billie Jean King deserve recognition as Dai-Yokozunas once you consider both their titles in the open- and pre-open eras.

You're right that one should maybe consider lowering the threshold to, say, 7 or 8, given that tennis has only 4 slams a year (an argument that I used in a different context myself). But it seems to me that the other players with, say, 8 titles -- Agassi, Lendl, Serena -- look not implausible but also not like a must.